1 CGHC010290272026 2026:CGHC:32591 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6824 of 2026 Bhajan Choudhary S/o Gopiram Choudhary Aged About 48 Years R/o New Shanti Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Police Station - Civil Line Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ahmed Ayaan Mirza, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 981/2025 registered at Police Station : Tikrapara, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 05.12.2025, the complainant, namely Chitrakant Baghel, lodged a written complaint at ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.30 10:43:54 +0530 2 Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, stating that he runs Kamco Industries and Venus Machinery Shop and Factory. It was further stated that one Milind Verma is a partner with the complainant in Kamco Industries. The complainant alleged that in the year 2024, the proprietor of K.K. Engineering, namely Bhajan Chaudhary (the present applicant), met him and represented that he could supply machinery for the complainant’s factory at a reasonable price. The applicant provided information regarding the machinery and showed videos and photographs of the same through his mobile phone. Believing the representations made by the applicant, the complainant and his partner, Milind Verma, agreed to purchase the machinery for their factory. Thereafter, the applicant requested the complainant to transfer the sale consideration for the machinery. Accordingly, the complainant and his partner transferred an aggregate amount of Rs. 56,09,805/-, in various instalments, to the bank account of the applicant’s firm. It is further alleged that after the lapse of two to three months, when the machinery was not supplied, the complainant contacted the applicant, who allegedly started avoiding him. Thereafter, when the complainant demanded the return of the amount, the applicant allegedly delivered old machinery to the complainant’s factory without providing any bill or invoice in respect thereof. It is further alleged that the machinery supplied was neither new nor commensurate with the amount paid by the complainant. The complainant further alleged that upon making enquiries with the manufacturer/company, he came to know that the machinery supplied was actually of 30-ton capacity, whereas a 50-ton sticker had been affixed to it. He was also informed that the machinery was approximately eight years old and that the said model had already been discontinued from production. Thereafter, the complainant again questioned the applicant and demanded the return of 3 the amount. The applicant allegedly assured the complainant that he would refund the money and also promised to assist in selling the goods manufactured in the complainant’s factory so as to increase its sales. However, when the applicant continued to avoid the complainant, the complainant realized that the applicant had allegedly cheated him by obtaining Rs. 56,09,805/- and supplying old machinery in place of the machinery promised. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No. 981/2025 was registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further submits that in fact the complainant and the applicant were partners in a firm. The applicant had earlier filed a complaint before Police Station Tikrapara against the complainant, pursuant to which the Investigating Officer registered a crime against the complainant, and investigation into another complaint was also pending. In order to thwart the said proceedings and to exert pressure upon the applicant, the complainant, by using his influence and on the basis of false and fabricated allegations, caused the present crime to be registered against the applicant. She also submits that the complainant and the applicant had been carrying on business as partners from the very beginning. Through another firm, the applicant transferred money to the complainant on numerous occasions, as and when required, and all such transactions were purely commercial in nature. During the course of running the partnership business, commercial transactions took place between the complainant and the applicant. Funds were transferred from the applicant’s proprietary concern, K.K. Engineering, to the complainant’s firms, namely Venus Machinery, Kamco Industries, and Atharva Construction. Moreover, the 4 rent for the premises from which the complainant’s business was being operated was also paid by K.K. Engineering. These facts demonstrate that the complainant and the applicant were business partners and had continuous commercial dealings from the inception of their business relationship. She submits that a perusal of the charge-sheet itself makes it clear that the applicant never had any dishonest intention to cheat the complainant, and that no fraud or other offence has been committed by the applicant against the complainant. By twisting and manipulating the facts, the complainant has sought to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute arising out of mutual commercial transactions, although no grounds exist for initiating criminal proceedings. The present dispute is purely civil in nature and has been deliberately portrayed as a criminal case. Aggrieved by the earlier crime registered against him at the instance of the applicant, the complainant has, as an afterthought and pursuant to a conspiracy, caused the present FIR to be registered on the basis of false and fabricated allegations. She also submits that the applicant submitted a written complaint against the complainant before Police Station Tikrapara on 25.09.2025, stating that the complainant had assaulted him and had wrongfully confined him. On 26.09.2025, the applicant lodged an FIR against the complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that the complainant, who was actively involved in business with the applicant, had assaulted him and hurled abuses at him, as a result of which the applicant sustained injuries. On 02.10.2025, the applicant submitted a representation to the Station House Officer, Police Station Tikrapara, requesting an investigation against the complainant on the ground that the complainant had forged the applicant’s signature as a witness in a rent agreement dated 5 08.10.2024. She submits that thereafter, the applicant submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, District Raipur, seeking investigation against the complainant and alleging that the complainant had used the applicant’s forged signatures in an agreement. The applicant further expressed apprehension that the complainant was using his name and signatures without his consent and for illegal purposes. On 26.11.2025, through his advocate, the applicant issued a legal notice to Kamco Industries and its partners, Chitrakant Baghel and Milind Verma. In the said notice, the applicant informed them of the alleged irregularities in the conduct of their business and stated that they intended to falsely implicate him. The notice further stated that Kamco Industries had not obtained a GSTIN and had been using the bank account of K.K. Engineering for its business transactions. It was also stated that machinery belonging to the applicant had been used by the complainant and his partner during the period from October 2024 to March 2025, that the amount payable in respect of such machinery had not been repaid, and that despite demands, the books of account were not provided to the applicant. She further submits that on 04.12.2025, the applicant submitted a complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Raipur, requesting an investigation against the complainant. In the said complaint, the applicant stated that, in view of the commercial transactions between the parties and the alleged wrongful acts of the complainant, he apprehended that the complainant had forged his signatures and prepared certain documents on that basis. The applicant further apprehended that a false FIR might be lodged against him on the basis of false information supplied by the complainant, and therefore requested an investigation into the matter. The applicant, being the proprietor of K.K. Engineering, Raipur, relies upon the bank account 6 statements of the said concern for the periods 01.10.2024 to 31.03.2025 and 01.04.2025 to 30.09.2025, which reflect transactions between K.K. Engineering and the complainant, as well as Venus Machinery. The said statements establish the existence of continuous commercial transactions between the parties and demonstrate that the transactions were carried out in the ordinary course of business. Consequently, the present FIR has been lodged with a vexatious motive and is an attempt to give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute. She further submits that the present applicant has only 01 criminal antecedents of under the IPC of the year 2022, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant has been in jail since 05.12.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, she prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the case diary is not available before this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the material available on record, prima facie, it appears that the dispute between the parties has arisen out of commercial transactions and their business relationship. The documents placed on record also indicate that there were continuous financial dealings between the applicant and the complainant. Further, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and has been taken on record. The applicant has only 01 criminal antecedent of the year 2022 under the IPC, which has already been duly explained in Part D of the present bail application, and has been in judicial custody since 05.12.2025. Considering that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take 7 considerable time, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail. 7. Let applicant, Bhajan Choudhary, involved in Crime No. 981/2025 registered at Police Station : Tikrapara, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before 8 the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek